Welcome to the Forum Archive!

Years of conversation fill a ton of digital pages, and we've kept all of it accessible to browse or copy over. Whether you're looking for reveal articles for older champions, or the first time that Rammus rolled into an "OK" thread, or anything in between, you can find it here. When you're finished, check out the boards to join in the latest League of Legends discussions.

@Riot The skill range in Bronze needs to be reconciled.

(Warning: not my dept, but I have some thoughts to share as a designer)

I tend to agree with the problem "Bronze is too big a bucket." Generally speaking, you want divisions and brackets to capture certain bands of players; when there's too many or they're too small, they become incomprehensible, but when there's too many people in one, it robs the division of meaning.

It's also why Bronze has such a wide discrepancy of skill between players in the division - some are legitimately struggling Ranked players that have a lack of certain core LoL proficiencies (last hitting, map awareness, etc), while others are simply less experienced or consistent players that have at least a general competence in most core skills.

I actually think I miss "Unranked" being a thing you could be, personally. Unranked is the nicest way of saying "yeah, you're not doing very well!" without extending that feeling to a majority of the League playerbase! Whatever the bottom League is feels bad, whether you're in Bronze V or Bronze I.

So, in short, I agree - I'd love to see greater granularity in the bottom of the ladder to give some additional skill division and more chances to achieve a goal for more players. I'll ask the team about this.

(Warning: not my dept, but I have some thoughts to share as a designer)

I tend to agree with the problem "Bronze is too big a bucket." Generally speaking, you want divisions and brackets to capture certain bands of players; when there's too many or they're too small, they become incomprehensible, but when there's too many people in one, it robs the division of meaning.

It's also why Bronze has such a wide discrepancy of skill between players in the division - some are legitimately struggling Ranked players that have a lack of certain core LoL proficiencies (last hitting, map awareness, etc), while others are simply less experienced or consistent players that have at least a general competence in most core skills.

I actually think I miss "Unranked" being a thing you could be, personally. Unranked is the nicest way of saying "yeah, you're not doing very well!" without extending that feeling to a majority of the League playerbase! Whatever the bottom League is feels bad, whether you're in Bronze V or Bronze I.

So, in short, I agree - I'd love to see greater granularity in the bottom of the ladder to give some additional skill division and more chances to achieve a goal for more players. I'll ask the team about this.

I would not mind if you bring back unranked status. Being Bronze 5 or even Bronze 3 I guess is just a participation award at this point. Even being Bronze should mean somethign.

If you're always matched against players of your same skill you should have around a 50% win loss rate. If you're better than those you're matched against, you'll have a higher win loss rate and you'll move up in divisions.

This model works great- over a larger number of games. You have to play enough games for your win loss rate to accurately compare you to the players you're matched against. Your WL ratio will be VERY sensitive to outliers- loses (or wins) which you had less control over for one reason or another.

I'm not great at statistics, but sample sizes of less that 20 or 30 are pretty worthless. So really, we should have to play at least that many placement matches to begin to develop an accurate depiction of a player's skill. That's why I like having an unranked spot. You can play enough games to be accurately given a rank based on your skill.

The other really important thing that has been mentioned a few times is taking into account other statistics about play to determine your skill. Right now your W/L ratio is EVERYTHING. This is because the ELO system was designed for Chess which is entirely based upon your individual skill meaning W/L was a very accurate measure. When evaluating a single variable (you) in an environment with 9 other degrees of freedom (them) you simply can't shrink your confidence interval without 1. dramatically increasing your sample size (all the stuff above) or 2. controlling on the other degrees of freedom. In this case, looking at something else related to your skill beyond W/L. The issues you run into here are things like CS, KDA, and Gold being role / meta dependant.

TL;DR Statistics makes quickly and accurately assessing skill levels VERY difficult. Pre-ranked play should be increased and data outside of W/L should be evaluated.

There is so much more to being good at this game than just getting a good KDA. What you're suggesting seems like it would encourage people being too scared to make plays in order to protect their KDA so that they won't lose as much at the end.

Taking a look at your LoLKing, I'd say step 1 to getting out of where you're at is farming better.

Um dude. Those are games that I have lost and had lower farm. That is ignoring the fact that it is common knowledge that it is harder to last hit on AP than AD. Yes getting a solid KDA is not everything but there has to be a balance for when your team is just bad. Games you lose in you farm less. Games where you are just stomping you either get more or end up with less by focusing the objectives and taking them faster. Did you look at game times. Trust me, I actually tend to outfarm my enemies and in general am top farm or at least top 3. I often outfarm ADC's on top laners so farming isn't my main problem to be honest. If you look at CS averages in general on my more played champs I could always improve but it is a lot better than your typical bronze player that has been all over. Sometimes I force kills and then have to leave farm because of how I got the kill too. My most recent matches aren't even the best sources though as some are ARAM and at least two had AFK's and leavers in them. In fact I believe three of my last games did. CS should be a variable. My point is a fair one. If I can go 6/2/0 top and have 230 CS at around 30 minutes vs Singed and my team just gets dumped on I shouldn't have to lose 20 LP. There is no real way to justify losin that much for the actions of others when it is supposed to be my SOLO ranking.

If you're always matched against players of your same skill you should have around a 50% win loss rate. If you're better than those you're matched against, you'll have a higher win loss rate and you'll move up in divisions.

This model works great- over a larger number of games. You have to play enough games for your win loss rate to accurately compare you to the players you're matched against. Your WL ratio will be VERY sensitive to outliers- loses (or wins) which you had less control over for one reason or another.

I'm not great at statistics, but sample sizes of less that 20 or 30 are pretty worthless. So really, we should have to play at least that many placement matches to begin to develop an accurate depiction of a player's skill. That's why I like having an unranked spot. You can play enough games to be accurately given a rank based on your skill.

The other really important thing that has been mentioned a few times is taking into account other statistics about play to determine your skill. Right now your W/L ratio is EVERYTHING. This is because the ELO system was designed for Chess which is entirely based upon your individual skill meaning W/L was a very accurate measure. When evaluating a single variable (you) in an environment with 9 other degrees of freedom (them) you simply can't shrink your confidence interval without 1. dramatically increasing your sample size (all the stuff above) or 2. controlling on the other degrees of freedom. In this case, looking at something else related to your skill beyond W/L. The issues you run into here are things like CS, KDA, and Gold being role / meta dependant.

TL;DR Statistics makes quickly and accurately assessing skill levels VERY difficult. Pre-ranked play should be increased and data outside of W/L should be evaluated.

This is basically what I said but I was downvoted for... Oh well you were more elegant about saying i can't do anything if my team is composed of wankers.

This is basically what I said but I was downvoted for... Oh well you were more elegant about saying i can't do anything if my team is composed of wankers.

Im not even concerned with people like that. I am concerned with people who just have no idea what is going on being in the same game with me who has some idea of whats going on, but has poor execution skills to follow through with it.

The problem is, which morello aludes to, that bronze is practically a participation prize and as such its lost all meaning. If you're a very unskilled player you should not get a rank, period. Bronze should be a proper tier that requires some skill to get in, but because you're guaranteed at least Bronze the system just dumps everyone in there if they're not good enough for silver whether you be a decent player but lacking consistency or someone who has no skill at all. If we had 'unranked' or something maybe then Bronze tier players might actually get something for end of season rewards like a border.

...but plat and up (besides 0lp plat 5 trolls) in generally seem to be much more map aware, know how to roam, know when to dive, and last hitting is just expected.

Average skill does improve but it's a very, very small band of people who actually bother trying currently and it's incredibly frustrating. Bronze is the most glaring example of it just given the sheer number of people down there but right now the second your MMR jumps into div 1 or 2 you will be playing with and against mostly div 5 trolls who are busy falling out of the next tier up and no longer care to try... this sadly does not go away until you're all the way back up to around div 3-4 of the next tier and can be one massive hell hole to wade through.

That experience (which sweet lord I've experienced so many time on my main and smurfs) is what makes people complain about some mythical 'elo hell'. It makes people feel helpless because they are playing with people who just simply don't care to try to win the game.

No, elo hell does not exist but low elo is most definitely a huge melting pot of skill levels and really goes a long way to demonstrating the problems experienced throughout all of the ratings.

PS: Diamond 5 trolls pls go away I miss being able to reliably win 4v5 games like in lower elo.

The problem is, which morello aludes to, that bronze is practically a participation prize and as such its lost all meaning. If you're a very unskilled player you should not get a rank, period. Bronze should be a proper tier that requires some skill to get in, but because you're guaranteed at least Bronze the system just dumps everyone in there if they're not good enough for silver whether you be a decent player but lacking consistency or someone who has no skill at all. If we had 'unranked' or something maybe then Bronze tier players might actually get something for end of season rewards like a border.

m
This is why no one has any respect for bronze or silver it pretty much means I played ranked lost all my games got placed bronze. If you are silver it means I won 6 lost 4 I'm silver and proud lol being placed in either and staying there means nothing honestly.